Home size rules left income support claimant in "financial stress"

Tuesday 02 January 2024

Stringent rules linking income support to the size of claimants' homes have left a woman "under financial stress" and forced to "sell personal belongings in order to make ends meet", a Tribunal has heard.

Following a move from a one-bedroom property to a more affordable house share, the woman was told that she had been 'overpaid' benefits which she would now have to pay back. She then appealed this before the Social Security Tribunal.

Despite ruling against her appeal, the Tribunal's Chair expressed "some sympathy" for the woman's "predicament".

Advocate Simon Thomas added in his recently published written judgment that the Tribunal "would hope that the appellant’s personal circumstances and her medical condition would be considered" when deciding whether to recover the overpaid benefits from her.

The woman's claim for income support began in April 2020.

One part of the income support calculation is a 'housing component' which varies according to the size of property occupied and whether that property is social housing or privately rented.

Pictured: The Tribunal said it hoped that Social Security would consider the woman's circumstances and medical condition when deciding if the money should be recouped.

Up until October 2022, the woman was residing in privately rented a one-bedroom house which was paid for by her employer. However, when she left that employment, she became entitled to the housing component of income support.

The woman was also entitled to Long-Term Incapacity Allowance during this time. Income support is only available to LTIA recipients if the amount they are entitled to is above the LTIA figure – which was the case for the woman whilst renting the one-bedroom house.

However, at the beginning of November 2022, the woman entered into a shared lease for a four-bedroom property with another individual.

The monthly rent on this four-bedroomed property was split equally between the pair.

The monthly rent that the woman was paying was £250 less each month than what she had previously been paying for the one-bedroom house, and she therefore deemed the property to be "affordable" as it would easily be covered by her LTIA and income support payment.

However, the consequence of the woman renting a four-bedroomed property meant that her income support entitlement had to be calculated differently, and therefore fell under the amount of LTIA she received meaning that the woman was no longer entitled to income support payments. 

As part of the appeal, an income support officer explained that under the income support scheme a single person would usually be entitled to a studio or one-bedroom property.

The officer "expressed some sympathy on behalf of the department for the woman's position, but pointed out that she has chosen to rent a property which gives her the use of two bedrooms and that is not what the income support legislation envisages".

He also "could not identify any exceptional circumstances" and said that "disregarding LTIA in the [woman's] case would offer her an advantage that other income support claimants did not have".

The woman explained that she thought the property was affordable because her part of the monthly rent was £250 less than she had been paying for her one-bedroomed house.

She signed a two-year lease for the property but her income support payments were stopped in February when the Social Security department realised her change in circumstances.

Now, all of the woman's LTIA income is taken up by her rent payments and told the Tribunal that she was "under financial stress and was having to sell personal belongings in order to make ends meet".

However, she was found to have been overpaid £2,715.85 in income support from when she started occupying the four-bedroom property on 1 November 2022 until 15 February 2023 when her income support claim was suspended. 

Dismissing the woman's appeal, Advocate Thomas explained: "As we made clear during the hearing, the Tribunal is bound to apply the legislation which pertains to income support.

"That is the case even where the results of applying that legislation might be perceived by an individual claimant to result in unfairness."

He added: "The Appellant was paying more rent for her one-bedroomed flat than she is now paying in respect of half of the rent for the four-bedroomed property.

"She argues that it is odd for her entitlement to income support to have disappeared when the rent she is paying has in fact reduced.

"However, the legislation is clear on how the calculation must be applied and we do not have a discretion to depart from that."